Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLewis, Melea
dc.contributor.authorStenning, Philip
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-03T11:20:07Z
dc.date.available2017-05-03T11:20:07Z
dc.date.issued2012
dc.date.modified2013-06-17T00:20:44Z
dc.identifier.issn19913877
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/48458
dc.description.abstractThis article analyses the majority and minority positions in the Constitutional Court's Glenister v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others1 decision. It will identify the main differences in approach to the issue of the political 'independence' of an investigative agency such as the Directorate for Priority Crime Investigation (the Hawks), and its predecessor, the Directorate of Special Operations (Scorpions). The article assesses what 'room for manoeuvre' in terms of possible legislation the majority judgment leaves to the South African parliament. The Court's approach and these apparent requirements are compared with current provisions for political 'independence' of anti-corruption agencies in Australia and Indonesia, raising, in particular, an assessment of the arguments for and against (a) the need for an anti-corruption investigative agency to be separate from the 'regular' police and prosecution service; and (b) the proposition that an anti-corruption investigative agency requires a higher level of political independence than the 'regular' police service(s). It also looks at issues of cost and effectiveness in establishing and maintaining dedicated independent anti-corruption agencies.
dc.description.peerreviewedYes
dc.description.publicationstatusYes
dc.format.extent246345 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.languageEnglish
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherInstitute for Security Studies
dc.publisher.placeSouth Africa
dc.publisher.urihttps://journals.assaf.org.za/index.php/sacq/article/view/847
dc.relation.ispartofstudentpublicationN
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom11
dc.relation.ispartofpageto21
dc.relation.ispartofjournalSA Crime Quarterly
dc.relation.ispartofvolume39
dc.rights.retentionY
dc.subject.fieldofresearchCriminology
dc.subject.fieldofresearchHuman geography
dc.subject.fieldofresearchLaw and society and socio-legal research
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode4402
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode4406
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode480405
dc.titleConsidering the Glenister Judgment: Independence requirements for anti-corruption institutions
dc.typeJournal article
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articles
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articles
gro.facultyArts, Education & Law Group, Key Centre for Ethics, Law, Justice and Governance
gro.rights.copyright© 2012 Institute for Security Studies. The attached file is reproduced here in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. Please refer to the journal's website for access to the definitive, published version.
gro.date.issued2012
gro.hasfulltextFull Text
gro.griffith.authorLewis, Melea J.
gro.griffith.authorStenning, Philip


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record